Tolerance

A review of two Phillips Brooks lectures

By, Rev. Donald Wehmeyer​



Because of the recent decisions by several large tech companies to censor speech they dislike, I remembered a book I read some time ago.

That book, Tolerance, contains two lectures by given by Phillips Brooks to Protestant Episcopal seminary students in 1887.[1]

1st Lecture​

To begin Brooks summarizes for his listeners six earlier books he thought valuable. I list them in case any reader wishes to do further research into this topic. Of the six books five are by Englishmen and one a German.

Areopagitica, Speech for the Liberty of Unlicensed Printing, Milton

Bloody Tenant of Persecution for Cause of Conscience, Roger Williams

Liberty of Prophesying, Bishop Jeremy Taylor

Letter of Toleration, John Locke (the care of souls does not belong to civil magistrates).

Nathan the Wise, Gotthold Ephraim Lessing

On Liberty, John Stuart Mill.

The dates between Milton’s book, 1644, and John Stuart Mill’s written in 1859 provides a small picture of just how long European culture has been struggling with the idea of tolerance. Indeed, nearly a century prior to Milton, John Calvin argued there must be protection of free speech. His argument was that because of the total corruption of humanity there is no one person who can claim perfect knowledge of the Scriptures. We all can improve our understanding of our lives, the world and eternity. Therefore discussions must be free and open to keep the truth and find it.[2]

With these preliminaries out of the way we find that Brooks quotes Frederick Maurice, to start his cogitations: “It is the natural feeling of all of us that charity is founded upon the uncertainty of truth. I believe it is founded on the certainty of truth.” Building on this Brooks writes, “Tolerance then is comprised of two parts, both of which are necessary and blend together. First is the conviction, what a person believes, second, sympathy with those whose convictions are different than one’s own.” Tolerance is a blend of conviction and sympathy.

This sounds quite reasonable but there is a fly in the soup. Whenever a quality is dependent on two parts, the parts can get out of balance. A person may have convictions so strong they become intolerant bigots ready to light the fires for heretics. And there are those who have no conviction at all, they are merely indifferent or apathetic; irresponsible to both God and neighbor.

Between the two, Brooks clearly prefers the hoary bigot. He notes that it is true that when someone loves the truth alone they can become cruel. Their love of doctrine permits no pity for man. Nevertheless the author prefers this to indifference because of what he calls the ‘law of three conditions’. The law of three conditions is: life, death and resurrection. He describes this as innocence of youth falling into temptation, doubt and disappointment (the loathing ingredients filling the heart of intolerant bigots) but from this death comes forth the “robust and sanguine religion of a full grown man.” His conclusion, “And so the advice to give to every bigot whom you want to make a tolerant man must be, not, ‘Hold your faith more lightly, and make less of it;’ but, ‘Hold your faith more profoundly, and make more of it. Get down to its first spiritual meaning; grasp its fundamental truth.” In doing so they will find new life, resurrection.

The other imbalance is that of the man without love of truth, their life becomes useless sentimentality. “Sentimentality trims the truth to suit men’s whims.” His illustration:

The boy whom the stranger asked the way to Farmington is the very image of the love of man that is not mingled and harmonized with love for truth. ‘It is eight miles,’ the boy replied. ‘Are you sure that it is so far as that?’ the weary traveler asked. The boy, with his big heart overrunning with the milk of human kindness, looked at him and replied, ‘Well seeing you are pretty tired, I will call it seven miles.

It is not the case that one can only be tolerant by sacrificing truthfulness or by adopting of indifference. To understand we must say more about what is meant by a tolerant disposition. A disposition that is clear of both bigotry and indifference. Brooks defines tolerance:

The willing consent that other men should hold and express opinions with which we disagree, until they are convinced by reason that those opinions are untrue.

Notice the following details. First tolerance is ‘willing’ which means deliberate or thoughtful. Secondly it is consent that an opinion be heard, there is no requirement that tolerance must advocate for an opposing opinion. Third, tolerance is regarded as a positive step towards truth by means of earnest discussion. Finally tolerance is patient conversation with someone whom we regard as beset by an honest error; there is no obligation to continue a discussion with the dishonest, hypocritical or sanctimonious.

So we see tolerance is not the result of a transaction, a bargain, a concession or contract. Tolerance occurs when the aim is for higher knowledge, for sacred truth. Tolerance is the result of this higher search, not the cause of it. Here ends the first lecture.



2nd Lecture​

The second lecture asks, what then about punishment, do we not cast out those who willfully subvert the truth? Can one tolerate a lie? Here Brooks offers sage advice.

What is the purpose of truth? Truth is to make human life obedient to God’s will. This is to say truth is a means to an end, not an end in itself.

God’s great purpose on the earth is man, not truth; as He will freely let His truth be misunderstood, and wait in perfect patience for the time when it can free itself from misconceptions and come out clear and sure, but will never let any one of His children be put in a place where he must necessarily do wrong – so (and it is the first truth of his ministry) the primary and final care of the true priest of God is human character; and truth is in his hands, not for its own value, but as an instrument for that.

Great is the power of the priest who thus stands guard over the humanity of his people… He has the most sacred of all the mysteries of God in charge; for a life is a more sacred mystery than any truth, and truth exists in the world but for the sake of human lives.

These quotations I believe summarize the good pastor’s thoughts. Tolerance is a disposition that yearns to learn from every honest opponent. It is not endorsing or accepting error, it is tool or tactic that offers a means to an end. Equally it is not a betrayal of truth but an acknowledgment that in this life truth is a path not a destination.

How bright is the light of the Christian disposition, tolerance; how dark is the arrogance of bigoted censorship. We conclude with Brooks’ charge to the young theology students.

Intolerance is meagerness of life… Be more afraid of the littleness than the largeness of life. Seek with study and with prayer for the most clear and confident convictions; and when you have won them, hold them so largely and vitally that they shall be to you, not the walls that separate you from your brethren who have other convictions than yours, but the medium through which you enter into understanding of and sympathy with them, as the ocean, which once was the barrier between nations, is now the highway for their never-resting ships, and makes the whole world one.

This is true tolerance. Into a deeper and deeper abundance of that tolerance may our Master lead all of us whom He has called to be ministers!



[1] Brooks, Phillips; Tolerance, two lectures. E.P.Dutton &Co. New York , 1887
[2] “The only way in which divine truth, either in Scripture or in nature, could be confirmed and its implications for the common life could be ascertained was through unfettered discussion.” Winthrop S. Hudson, Theological Convictions and Democratic Government, Theology Today, July, 1953, Pg236